TBH it looks to me like those who were wary of AFR because the additional space would be abused are being proved right. While I have nothing against AFR, what has happened to the 1/6 DVD standard? It looks like just about every rip is 1/3, often films that no one would have dreamed of releasing a 2CD of under TDX standards.

While I have nothing against AFR, what has happened to the 1/6 DVD standard? It looks like just about every rip is 1/3, often films that no one would have dreamed of releasing a 2CD of under TDX standards.

I think that 1/3rd rips are becoming the favourite because you can pretty much get full DVD resolution with AC3 sound into that filesize. I'd pretty much consider ripping anything shot on film, where the DVD is good quality, at 1/3rd size. 1/6th I'd reserve for DV shot features, VHS rips, and poor quality DVD masters.

I have mainly been releasing movies that i would only ever dare to do as 2cds (although i probably wouldn't ever release them since i never do 2cds ) so can't really comment. I haven't seen much of an abuse to be honest. An abuse is tacking on a dub or audio commentary, not so much utilising the space.

I've seen some movies that i think is a tad much based on how utterly shite the film is (there's some shit busters mainly ), but in terms of visual quality its kind of played out better.

My preference is to keep full resolution of the dvd without much loss too, that's a very smart choice.

Abuse was too strong a word, it was just rips going over the top IMHO. I don't want to give any examples as I don't want to tread on anyone's toes, but I would prefer a 1/6 unless the movie warranted it, I wouldn't expect a 1/6 of Star Wars with stereo sound, or for that matter a really long film such as Africa Addio.

There have been a lot of 1/3 posted here and at T3 where there is a perfectly good 700MB rip available and I wonder if the movie is worth the extra bitrate as you have mentioned above. For starters anything released before 1976 would not have surround sound and nor would a hell of a lot of B-movies released well into the eighties. Some of the stuff that has been released recently would be considered overkill in the old days if it had been done as a 2CD.

Maybe it's just me begrudging the fact that this trend has killed the AOTN collection as I have no intention of downloading these films just to obtain specs where they are not posted in the thread.

The way I see is 1/3rd is the way to go. You get practically full res, AC3 audio good-excellent bit/pixel and a medium bitrate. Even at 1/3rd size, a lower than 704X### res seems nessacry to get good picture quality. I like the dvd-quality audio aspect and having one whole file, main reasons I approve.

So you're telling me Man's Best Friend with Lance Henricksen didn't call for more than a 1CD or 1/6th good give? Bollocks.

I never said that as I haven't seen the film. I could name a few though, but I won't. Look at the next 30 year old B-movie released at 1/3, does it have surround sound? Proper surround sound that you can actually tell the difference, not poorly remastered shit? If not then it's not worth the 1/3. There's been some real crusty old shit released at 1/3 recently, it's just not worth it. 576x### looks fine to me, certainly for the sort of stuff I'm talking about. Some releases make me wonder why not just go the whole hog and up the DVD-R, at least if it's only a DVD-5, and this sort of stuff often is.

A lot of people have said that, regardless of the number of channels, AC3 sounds better to their ears than MP3. My ears are not that sharp enough that I can differentiate between the two in a blindfold test, but maybe some others can.

George Tatum, do a search on INFECT. piss over any of the ones done since AFR came about if there's one that you think is a good example.

All of those are ones that anything less than 1/3rd would be a crime. Pervirella if it was done now would be a 1/6th rather than 700mb i think, but as it stands, there's no point propering/upgrading that one further

George Tatum, do a search on INFECT. piss over any of the ones done since AFR came about if there's one that you think is a good example.

I wasn't intending to point out any specific rip cos I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. I wasn't aware of any Infect rips, I've done a search and I reckon Candyman, great film though it is, only needs a 1/6. Basically if it's a 90 minute stereo film I don't see the point. Off-topic, having seen in the Candyman thread that all DVD's are cut, does this mean we need a rip from the UK VHS (it wasn't a pre-cert BTW, it was released in 1992 IIRC and pre-certs are pre-1984)? I have this VHS.

unskinnyboy wrote:

A lot of people have said that, regardless of the number of channels, AC3 sounds better to their ears than MP3. My ears are not that sharp enough that I can differentiate between the two in a blindfold test, but maybe some others can.

I haven't tried comparing 2 channel AC3 with MP3 for quality, but I can easily tell the difference between 160 and 192k/s MP3, at least if the 2 are played one after the other. I wouldn't touch music below 192 unless it is particularly rare but I consider 128 to be fine on a movie audio. One rip I know of, definitely not naming it as it was ripped by a friend of a friend and I don't want to upset anyone, has an AC3 track despite the movie being mono, definitely overkill IMHO. Even if AC3 is better, FLAC pisses all over MP3 but how many people have their music collection encoded in FLAC?

Well it is a classic, but again it is 2 channel AC3 Does anyone have this rip and Ferox's to compare the two, although this is a better codec. This may be worth the 1/3 if it eliminates the ghosting that all cannibal films suffer from in high motion jungle scenes; having said that I have seen a number of DVD's of CH and they all suffer ghosting on the actual DVD, is the Ultrabit the same?

I see your point George, and I don't think you have pissed anyone off.

Heres an example, I was/am going to rip Dr Strangelove in AFR specs. There are 3 audio choices; 6ch DTS, 6ch AC3, and original Mono (dual mono) Ac3. The movie is about 90 mins. and its B&W! But a 1/3rd would look stellar with the orig audio (thats a spec right?) thats mono. DTS would crush it, and having 5.1 ch for a movie from 1964 is just dumb (though its sounds to ears like it is a very subtle mix).

Also there is much talk about time and length, but a 2hr slow drama would do better at 745MB than a 90 min action movie would, not to mention the 'film-y-er' it looks the more bitrate it takes to accurately represent the image. BUT the whole point of xvid was to make them small and look good, so I guess it is just a matter of preference, as some may feel that more than a gig is bloated.

I was hoping you'd choose Candyman, since it was a movie i could have released prior to AFR but refused to do a 1cd of since it suffered too much (which ruled it out of being released by me). It would only be a 2cd, and it wouldn't have happened since i don't do multiple file releases for anything but TV since they are just a pain to spread. There are plenty of 1cds and they all look terrible, doing a 1/6th would have made little improvement, sure it would be improvement but it would have made the end rip look pretty poor as a result.

Throw into the mix that this has widespread populist appeal, its not a bmovie or something only for people tolerant to horror movies of all forms but one that's mass market and cirtically well received in many regards.

I completely disagree with you on most fronts on this one about it being more suitable as a 1/6th, which is unsurpisingly why it isn't For movies like hellraiser, dog soldiers,exorcist, hell even the first friday the 13ths and nightmares I don't see the point in doing 1/6th releases at this point in time. With the mass market appeal they have, with the benefit visually they get from full sized resolution doing a 1/6th for such movies would just be a waste. When you get into the sequels, then i'd agree since you loose the appeal given how crpa they are and you gain spread from lowering the filesize. You loose quality, but here its more of a necessity.

I also think your getting your wires crossed with abuse. I thought you meant like pca said about people just filling the extra 44mb with crap, like audio commentaries and what not, but your actually arguing against a decision to move the resolution from a sub-600 resolution to full resolution on mass market movies? In the case of candyman, given that it was quite critically signficant and requested a number of times given how a 1cd rip simply was unsuitable its quite extreme to suggest it didn't need a 1/3rd. I would never do a 1/6th for a movie like candyman. If it were a whole host of bmovies, sure, for candyman... nope, never. The decision wasn't based on what the audio needed, but what the video needed. It needed to be full res imo.

I can semi-see the point you are trying to make, but i thought you were talking about a real abuse like PCA was tlaking about, whereas here your attacking necessity for maintaining video quality and probably don't hold candyman in high regard which only makes it easier to argue as overblown. An abuse would be bloating a filesize beyond necessity or attaching extras to build up the filesize, which is why i loathe muxing in audio commentaries... its a waste. There was an audio commentary on candyman, but it wasn't worth attacking the video just to accomodate it, which is why it isnt there.

If i get time i'll show you some shots from a 1cd, its pretty much destroys your arguement for necessity since its rather significant... do you have a copy? Refresh your mind with it, i don't know if you'll change your view or not. I certainly would not release candyman less than a equivalent to 2cds, it deserves and achieves more with that size It was also requested based on the fact that the 1cds looked poor that someone do a larger one, and afr was the only way i would do it. 1/6th just didn't suit the rip. You lost from a 700x res down to a sub 600x, it was clearly pixelating and people didn't want another low quality compromise. Now if it would have fit on 2cd, but i crammed on an audio commentary (there's one on the DVD btw, I just will not abuse space by including something people arne't going to use) then that would clearly be an abuse, but when its improved the quality so profoundly?

I am planning to rip Near Dark as 1/3rd DVDr too. It is 94min long movie, but the gain it gets from an appropriate filesize overwhelms the filesize gain from excessive compression for a movie like this. It also happens to be one of the best horror films made so that's another plus next to its level of appeal. There are plenty of low quality 1cd rips for the movie, I would not consider anything less than the equivalent of a 2cd, before or after the AFR came into being. There's one set of movies i would probably have done 1cds before previously, and that would be Phantasm 3 and 4. I'd probablky have either not bothered doing any of them, or had done all four of them that way. There's no doubt in my mind phantasm 1 is 1/3rd, any lower is too low. 2 gains loads from being 1/3rd, but it wouldn't have been that size without AFR.

I can argue that sometimes, if its a bmovie or a lame duck and its short with poor sound, doing 1/6ths are clearly a better choice. For candyman i think its a pretty extreme view, especially given the high standards these days. I dunno, you clearly thing what you do for a reason, and that's probably that you don't rate candyman at all, but can you at least see that i would never do less than a 1/3rd (or more than for that matter, its the apt size for it) and why it was the only viable choice? I don't think people are abusing it, I actually think its being used relatively spot on how it should be. There's a few movies i think its too much for though, for most there's already 1cds I just think when the budget and appeal of the movie is substantially lower, it might be worthwhile then to

Quote:

Off-topic, having seen in the Candyman thread that all DVD's are cut, does this mean we need a rip from the UK VHS (it wasn't a pre-cert BTW, it was released in 1992 IIRC and pre-certs are pre-1984)? I have this VHS.

No, that's censored. The pre-cert VHS is a pirate/bootleg. Its apparantly what the BBFC rated. Whether its classed as a work print, it has been unrated by the BBFC but available illegally on vhs in the uk. I've never found it but would like to.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum